Arizona Drone Laws (2026): Privacy, Critical Facilities & Warrants

Arizona has no civilian drone-privacy statute after Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed one in 2023, but the state does criminalize using a drone to photograph or loiter over or near a defined critical facility, preempts nearly all local drone ordinances, and now shields public entities and peace officers from liability for property damage when an officer disables a drone within 15 miles of the international border.

Information last verified on 2026-07-09. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Scope: This page covers Arizona law on civilian and law-enforcement drone use, the critical-facility and local-preemption statute, and the federal shoot-down law. It does not cover FAA flight-operation rules. For a related surveillance topic, see Arizona Surveillance Camera Laws.

Does the FAA or Arizona control where a drone can fly?

The Federal Aviation Administration controls the navigable airspace, which for drones extends down to the ground, and Arizona cannot override that authority no matter how a local ordinance is worded. Anyone flying a drone in Arizona must register it with the FAA, keep it at or below 400 feet, and stay within visual line of sight unless a waiver applies; recreational flyers take the FAA's free TRUST test, while commercial and government operators need a Remote Pilot Certificate under 14 CFR Part 107. None of that decides whether a neighbor can legally point a camera drone at your backyard, or whether flying near a power plant is a felony. Those are Arizona-law questions, and the Legislature's own statute, A.R.S. Section 13-3729, makes the split explicit: the state occupies drone regulation almost entirely, leaving cities and counties little room to add their own rules.

Does Arizona have a drone privacy law?

Not currently, though Arizona came close. Senate Bill 1277, passed by both chambers in 2023, would have made it unlawful to use a drone to intentionally photograph, record, or otherwise observe another person in a private place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed it, writing that it would restrict the work of broadcasters, newspapers, telecommunication providers, and insurance providers, and that current law already protected Arizonans from the privacy violations it targeted. No replacement civilian privacy bill had been enacted as of this writing.

Without a dedicated statute, civilian drone spying is analyzed under general law. A.R.S. Section 13-1424 (voyeurism) makes it a Class 5 felony to knowingly invade another person's privacy, without that person's knowledge and for the purpose of sexual stimulation, where the person reasonably expects not to be photographed, recorded, or viewed. The statute's reach is wider than nudity alone. Subsection C covers a person in a state of undress or partial dress, engaged in sexual intercourse or sexual contact, urinating or defecating, or recorded in a manner that directly or indirectly captures the person's genitalia, buttock or female breast, whether clothed or unclothed, that is not otherwise visible to the public. That last clause matters for drone facts, because it can reach footage of a clothed person in a fenced backyard that no passerby could see. What the statute still does not reach is a drone that simply records a backyard gathering, because the sexual-stimulation purpose is an element the state has to prove.

That gap became visible in 2025, when a northeast Phoenix neighborhood reported a drone repeatedly "nosediving" toward children over several weeks. A Phoenix police officer met with residents to explain the limited options: report the operator to the FAA if identified, since the flight itself carried no automatic penalty and the operator was never caught.

Does Arizona police need a warrant to fly a drone over my property?

Arizona has no statute specifically requiring a search warrant before a law enforcement agency uses a drone, unlike Nevada, Oregon, or Minnesota. Absent a state-specific statute, the ordinary Fourth Amendment standard applies: police generally need a warrant to use a drone to gather evidence from a constitutionally protected area, such as a home's curtilage, unless a recognized exception like consent, exigent circumstances, or plain view applies. A common misconception traces to an unrelated statute, A.R.S. Section 13-3007, sometimes mislabeled online as a drone-warrant law; it actually sits in Arizona's eavesdropping chapter and addresses exclusion of improperly obtained electronic-communication records, not drone surveillance. Treat any claim that Arizona has a stand-alone drone warrant statute with caution until the Legislature actually passes one.

How does general trespass law apply to a drone in Arizona?

Arizona's trespass statutes were not written for drones, but one provision comes closer than most. A.R.S. Section 13-1504(A)(3) makes it criminal trespass in the first degree, a class 1 misdemeanor, to enter a residential yard and, without lawful authority, look into the residential structure on it in reckless disregard of the inhabitant's right of privacy. That language assumes the person looking has entered the yard on the ground, so whether a drone hovering above it satisfies the entering element is untested in Arizona's appellate courts. A separate provision, Section 13-1504(A)(6), makes entering a critical public service facility a class 5 felony, distinct from the drone-specific statute below. A homeowner facing a persistent nuisance drone is more likely to have a workable claim through civil nuisance or intrusion upon seclusion than through a criminal trespass charge.

What is Arizona's critical-infrastructure drone law?

A.R.S. Section 13-3729 is the center of Arizona's drone law, and it does two different things. Subsection B makes it a class 6 felony, a class 5 felony on a second or subsequent violation, to operate a drone to intentionally photograph or loiter over or near a critical facility in furtherance of any criminal offense. The words "or near" matter: the offense is not limited to overflight of the facility itself. The statute defines critical facility broadly: refineries and chemical storage facilities, water and wastewater treatment systems and dams, electric generation facilities and substations, high-voltage transmission lines, communication towers, courts, jails, military installations, and hospitals with air ambulance service. Subsection A separately makes it a class 1 misdemeanor to operate a drone in a way prohibited by federal aviation law, or that interferes with law enforcement, firefighting, or emergency-services operations.

Two exemptions take the whole section off the table. Under subsection D.1, Section 13-3729 does not apply to a person or entity that is authorized or allowed by the FAA to operate an unmanned aircraft system, so long as the operation complies with that authorization or with FAA rules, which covers a Part 107 remote pilot flying within the terms of their certificate. Under subsection D.4, it does not apply to a first responder acting in an official capacity or to an emergency worker engaged in authorized emergency management activities.

The same statute preempts nearly all local drone regulation. Since it took effect on August 6, 2016 (enacted as Senate Bill 1449), a city, town, or county may not enact or enforce any ordinance relating to drone ownership or operation, and any that predate or postdate that law are void. Two narrow allowances survive. A locality may adopt rules for a public drone it owns itself, and it may regulate the takeoff or landing of a model aircraft in a park or preserve it owns, but only where there are other parks or preserves in the jurisdiction available for model aircraft operation, or where the jurisdiction has only one park or preserve. That carve-out is written for model aircraft and does not give a city general authority over where drones may launch.

A 2025 law adds a wrinkle specific to Arizona's border with Mexico. House Bill 2733, codified at A.R.S. Section 12-820.10, provides that a public entity or public employee is not liable to a drone operator for any injury to personal property caused by a peace officer intercepting, capturing, disabling, shooting, destroying, or otherwise rendering inoperative a drone within fifteen miles of the state's international border, if the officer had reasonable suspicion the drone was being used to commit a violation of Title 13, chapter 23 (organized crime, fraud, and terrorism), chapter 34 (drug offenses), or chapter 34.1 (imitation substance or drug offenses). Read the section precisely, because its wording is narrower than the headlines it generated. It is a liability shield, not a grant of authority: no Arizona statute affirmatively authorizes an officer to damage or destroy a drone, and Section 12-820.10 says nothing about when doing so is lawful. It also leaves the federal offense described below untouched, since state law cannot immunize anyone against 18 U.S.C. Section 32, and it protects public entities and employees only, never a private citizen.

Is it legal to shoot down a drone over my property in Arizona?

No, for a private citizen. Federal law, 18 U.S.C. Section 32, makes it a felony to willfully damage, destroy, or disable an aircraft, and the FAA has classified drones as aircraft within the National Airspace System since 2012. Shooting down a drone is a federal crime regardless of where it is flying, including directly over the shooter's own property, because the FAA, not the landowner, controls the airspace. A conviction carries up to 20 years in federal prison, a fine of up to $250,000, and permanent loss of firearm rights. Arizona's border-area immunity statute, Section 12-820.10, shields public entities and employees from a property-damage claim in narrowly defined circumstances; it does not extend to a homeowner who shoots at a drone they merely suspect of spying on them, and it does not affect federal criminal exposure for anyone. A certified drone pilot made that same point to local reporters after the Phoenix drone-harassment reports.

Publicized cases where a shooter faced only reduced or dismissed state charges are not evidence that this conduct is safe. A Kentucky man's 2015 shoot-down of a neighbor's drone led a local judge to dismiss state criminal-mischief charges, but the drone owner's federal lawsuit, Boggs v. Merideth, was dismissed in 2017 for lack of federal jurisdiction, without any court deciding whether the shoot-down itself was lawful. That federal exposure applies to an Arizona landowner the same as anywhere else.

Disclaimer

This article provides general legal information about Arizona drone law as verified on 2026-07-09. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Readers with a specific drone incident, or a question about a pending Arizona bill, should consult a lawyer licensed in Arizona.

Related articles

• Drone Laws by State: the complete hub
• Arizona Surveillance Camera Laws
• Arizona Recording Laws

Last updated: 2026-07-09. Statutes cited reflect their in-force or enacted version as of 2026-07-09.

More Arizona Laws

• Arizona Data Privacy Laws
• Arizona GPS Tracking Laws
• Arizona Police Bodycam Laws
• Arizona Recording Laws
• Arizona Smart Glasses Recording Laws